The loons are trying to claim the SCOTUS decision makes Section 3 unenforceable without congressional action. That is plainly false. The Court said Congress has "long given effect to Section 3", and cited the relevant laws, the Enforcement Act of 1870 and the Confiscation Act of 1862.
When USC Title 18 was adopted in 1948, the insurgency and rebellion provisions in the prior laws became18 USC 2383, which the court called "a successor to those provisions".
The Enforcement Act of 1870 was essentially a voting rights act, and it was not just repealed- all the provisions in that law were replaced with new Title 18 and Title 52 codification, depending on whether it's in the voting section or the criminal section.
The only part of the Enforcement Act that was not kept, was the practice of using writs of quo warranto to remove someone from office who was disqualified under Section 3, and making it a misdemeanor to hold office if you were disqualified.
Raskin may try to resurrect quo warranto, but that still has to be ordered by a Federal judge, and is subject to appeal, etc.
Insurrection still has to be proven in order to disqualify someone.
The definition of insurrection (unchanged since 1807):
Insurrections and rebellions consisted of either uprising and threatening the government of a state, leading the state’s legislature to petition for federal intervention, or opposing or obstructing the execution of the laws of the United States “by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals.”
In either case, the President must make a proclamation ordering a cessation of the uprising and “it is only after disobedience to that proclamation” that it can duly be considered insurrection or rebellion.
It's pretty obvious the J6 riot was not an insurrection.
RIP Insurrection, you were fun while you lasted, lol...
